Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Most folks would not be surprised if I were to make the claim that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not properly consider the science when it issued its “Endangerment Finding” saying that CO2 was a pollutant and a danger to humanity. It is that scientifically unsupported finding that allows them to regulate CO2.
And you likely would not be surprised if I made the claim that:
1. The EPA did not release the findings supporting its Technical Support Document (TSD), as is required by law. Instead, it has kept them secret.
2. The EPA was supposed to get a panel of outside scientists to provide an impartial analysis of the science. Instead, it put an EPA employee on the panel. If I were a cynical sort of fellow, I’d say that the employee in question was instructed to find in favor of the Persecution rather than in favor of the Defense …
3. The EPA has different regulations for normal decisions and for a “highly influential scientific assessment”. Anyone with half a brain would certainly say that a ruling that will cost billions and billions of dollars and affect nearly every single business in America is a “highly influential scientific assessment”. However, the half-brains at the EPA says not so, they say it’s just an ordinary old plain vanilla assessment, no need for special caution or extra due diligence …
Most folks know that I’m a climate heretic, so it’s no surprise that I might hold such outrageous views. However, here’s what might surprise you.
Those are not my views. They are the published views of the US EPA Office of the Inspector General, as expressed in their latest official report on the question.
Now, in any well run organization, this official finding by the Inspector General of flagrant flouting of the scientific requirements would call for an immediate do-over … but this is not a well run organization, it is the US Government, sub-species EPA.
So what did the EPA bureaucrats do in response to the IG’s Report?
Well, they promised that they would never, never ever do such a thing again, cross their heart they won’t.
Don’t you feel better now? Good to know that the government has our back.
Hey, if you don’t believe me, read the US EPA Inspector General’s Report (summary and full report [710 Kb PDF]). As the saying goes … it’s worse than we thought …
And the AGW supports claim that we skeptics are the ones “denying the science”???
Regards to everyone,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Loose lips sink ships.
DCA,
This is a science site, not a blog for propaganda links. Media Matters is a George Soros-funded misinformation blog that has been widely discredited as the al-Jazeera of the MSM. People who believe them will believe anything.
Smokey,
I’m just trying be able to argue against such propaganda sites. I don’t believe much of anything they say.
Willis or any knowledgeable contributor on this thread,
“1. The EPA did not release the findings supporting its Technical Support Document (TSD), as is required by law. Instead, it has kept them secret.”
Could access to the ‘Technical Support Document’ be achieved by a Freedom Of Information Act request? How did/does the EPA justify not releasing the TSD?
Willis,
That is basicly the same reply I made on a local blog to a warmist who uses these propaganda blogs as sources.
Mr. Lynn says:
September 29, 2011 at 5:42 am
“How about inviting all the candidates (declared and not) to a Climate Realist Advance (not a ‘retreat’!): a weekend of seminars and discussions with luminaries like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Lord Monckton, Willis Eschenbach, etc., etc.?”
…. agree, this is a ‘must’. IMO, could be completed within one day.
The GOP candidate must be prepared to be put on the spot (when least expected) during the run in to the election, quite probably during presidential debate(s). The liberal ‘mainstream’ media are peddling a fallacious narrative that conservatives “deny science”. In a bad economy, and in generally unfavourable circumstances for Obama to get re-elected, you can count on the ‘mainstream’ media to try to bring this narrative to the fore. The candidate must be ready to address this head on. I hate to be political as a scientist myself, but ‘climate science’ is a highly politicised issue, and the only way the EPA can be reigned in is with a conservative president elected in Nov-2012 (as you have alluded to).
(btw, as mentioned by others, Perry isn’t the only GOP candidate with a climate ‘realist’ stance)
From Willis Eschenbach on September 29, 2011 at 11:06 am:
Well, I wasn’t going to say anything, but…
In all your years of sailing, did you ever see a sailboat sink nose-first? I thought the “normal” way of sinking was rolling on the side first. As to a hull breach, offhand I’d think the rear of the boat would be weighed heavier as a counterbalance to the torquing effect of the wind in the sails, thus they’d sink butt-first.
What happened, did someone shout “Oh look, we’re approaching the Communist Utopia!” and too many EPA bureaucrats ran to the prow at once?
BTW, how did the nail-pounding go?
Willis:
I don’t know if you’re a member of the ham radio fraternity. But I know Anthony is, and I’m sure he can recall the case, not long ago, where the ARRL sued the FCC over the FCC’s action approving Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology. The ARRL argued that the FCC failed to follow its own rules, particularly regarding transparancy, in arriving at their decision. The FCC held back certain technical data they claimed supported their action when, in fact, the data was marginal at best. The court ruled in favor of the ARRL.
In this case, the ARRL was fortunate to be before a court confident and open-minded enough to understand enough of the arguments to not feel the need to fall back on the old cliched, “We must defer to the technical experts…” I’m sure the Inspector General’s findings regarding the EPA’s failues of transparancy will be fully exposed in the cases currently wending their way through courts. Hopefully, they will find courts as open-minded and self-confident as the ARRL did. If nothing else, the cases will finally bring about the honest head-to-head debate the warmists have for so long sought to avoid.
Frank -W2NJ
Frank Slojkowski says:
September 29, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Hey, Frank, as it happens I am a ham operator, Hotel 44 Whisky Echo (Solomon Islands). And I do recall the case. And I was glad to see the IG’s report for that very reason. I’m sure it will be court fodder before too long.
w.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2011 at 12:14 pm
The drawing shows the fatal moment just prior to broaching. As you likely know but others may not, running a big sailboat or motorboat downwind is very risky because you can do what sailors call “broaching”. What can happen is the following:
1. The boat gets picked up and slides forwards down the face of a following wave. At that point it is moving faster than the wave.
2. When the boat slides down to the bottom of the wave, the nose of the boat hits the back side of the wave in front, and the speed of the boat drives the nose of the boat underwater.
3. The forwards motion of the boat stops when the nose punches into the wave in front, but the wave keeps rolling. This lifts the stern of the boat out of the water. This also means that the rudder is out of the water, so you can no longer control the boat.
4. Due to the force of the following wave, the stern of the boat swings sideways to the waves, and the boat starts rolling over sideways. This is called “broaching”.
5. Depending on the size of the boat, the size of the waves, and the boat speed, the boat will either recover from the sideways roll, or it will roll completely upside down. (Curiously, larger waves may be less dangerous than smaller waves in this regards. The most dangerous is when the wave height is about equal to the beam [width] of the boat.)
My drawing shows step three in the process, the point where the folks in charge of the noble vessel USS EPA have lost control of the boat as the nose digs in, the rudder lifts out of the water, and it doesn’t matter what you do, you’re going to broach.
But I did like your theory about all of the bureaucrats rushing to the front of the vessel …
w.
PS – you ask:
The nail-pounding continues apace, it’s my day job. Trying to get an awning up over the project, it’s supposed to rain next week.
DCA, my apologies. I assumed you were promoting MediaMatters. Thanks for correcting me.
EPA has been issuing rules on CO2 reporting for a while now. People should subscribe to the daily Federal Registry Notices…you’ll find EPA publishing either a rule, proposed rule, or notice related to greenhouse gas reporting at least weekly (if not daily). For example, September 27, 2011:
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing To Provide Flexibility. 59542–59551 [2011–24364]
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Revisions to Best Available Monitoring Method Provisions. 59533–59541 [2011–24362]
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-27/html/2011-24364.htm
Rules? What rules? It’s only the end result that matters… As Alinsky said “by whatever means necessary!”
I don’t have time to read all the comments, but one of EPA’s own has spilled this corruption a long time ago. Please support Alan Carlin in any way you can:
http://www.carlineconomics.com/
Please read all his posts (not many) for a full accounting of EPA’s disgusting TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR.
Oh, in case it’s not clear, Carlin was a very important figure in EPA, until he started telling the truth. He is now retired. I wonder if there was any pressure, LOL.
This EPA will bankrupt us all: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_94ac2f22-053b-533c-ba7f-2ae4755fe143.html
Ok, as long as we are talking about sailing (which I know nothing about).
I have read the book “Godforsaken Sea”, which details the Vendee Globe sailboat race that leaves France, sails south through the Atlantic, then takes a left to follow the never-ending storms which encircle Antarctica, the racers must go all the way around Antarctica (the shorter the route they take, the more icebergs they encounter) before heading back up the Atlantic to France.
But, anyway, the quote from the book I’ll always remember is:
“Below forty degrees south there is no law:
below fifty degrees south there is no God.”
(Old sailor’s saying)
Here’s another:
“The art of the sailor is to leave nothing to chance”
Annie Van de Wiele
Perhaps an organization like The Heritage Foundation or The Cato Institute could sponsor a Climate Realist day or weekend for presidential candidates.
Anyone reading this thread from one of those sterling institutions?
/Mr Lynn
Interesting points raised by the Inspector General. It’s curious how point 3 seems to contradict point 1, which essentially makes it pointless.
From the full report (pp. 9-10 of pdf numbered as pp. 2-3):
Fast forward to “Appendix G” (begins at p. 69 of .pdf)
Notice the date?! Almost a full year after the InterAcademy Council’s review of the IPCC’s policies and procedures noted the shortcomings and many failures of the IPCC to follow its own rules (just like the EPA!)
Frankly I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the utter arrogance of the “agency comments” in this MEMORANDUM, which include (p. 59 of .pdf)
Someone at the EPA has obviously been paying far too much attention to the Pachauri mantra [presumably before he saw the grey light]
Perhaps this is all part ‘n parcel of the story and the glory of post-normal “science”. A proclamation is made by one or more “scientists” and published in an “approved” journal (or in-crowd blessed facsimile thereof) which makes it an untouchable (not to mention unreplicable and unverifiable) TRUTH (thereby rendering it worthy of elevation to citation in the Climate Bible, aka an IPCC assessment report)
I think I’d need to write a (minimum) 3,000 word epistle to articulate (and document) all my thoughts on this. And someday, when I have the time, I shall probably do so on my own blog. But the bottom line (if not the headline) is that the “findings” of the EPA (which does not follow its own rules) depend to a great extent on the “findings” of a United Nations creation which does not follow its own rules either. But for now …I find it all …
Amazing. Simply amazing.
P.S. Willis, I do like your logo … But, if you were to ask me, as an iconically challenged person, I would have say that your ‘toons speak louder than your “logostics” 😉
This is how the warmers are spinning the smack-down of the EPA. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/28/28greenwire-new-ig-report-faults-process-in-epas-greenhous-53062.html
To be expected but what I found interesting is the comments from the God of Climate at the bottom of the article.
Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth said the IG report made “a mountain out of a molehill.”
“This has nothing to do with the science that justifies the endangerment finding and everything to do with politics,” Trenberth said, adding that the IG’s criticisms focused only on process and not the quality of science EPA is using. “There is nothing here that undermines the EPA’s way forward.”
Me thinks the warming that is happening is under is own arse 🙂 I find this funny since he was able to help make a hockey stick out of a straight line….